Topclose Farm, Macclesfield

Building Inspection Report for Bat Roosting Potential

Report drafted by: Sophie Warnock (Natural England Level 1 Survey Licence 2016-24354-CLS-CLS)

Supervisor: Neil Lee-Gallon (Natural England Level II Survey Licence 2015-10739-CLS-CLS) Title: Topclose Farm, Macclesfield Building Inspection Report for Bat Roosting Potential

Client: Dominic Farley

Date: December 2017

| Status | Date | Prepared by | Reviewed by | Approved by | |--------|--------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------| | V1 | 14/12/17 | Sophie Warnock | Kelly MacGillivray | Kelly MacGillivray | | | | Assistant Ecologist | Ecologist | Ecologist | | V2 | | | | | | Final | | | | |

NLG Ecology Ltd has prepared this report for the sole use of the client, showing reasonable skill and care, for the intended purposes as stated in the agreement under which this work was completed. The report may not be relied upon by any other party without the agreement of the client and NLG Ecology Ltd. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report.

Data supplied by the client or from other sources have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct. No responsibility can be accepted by NLG for inaccuracies in the data supplied by any other party. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the assumption that all relevant information has been supplied by those bodies from whom it was requested.

Where field investigations have been carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail required to achieve the stated objectives of the work. This work has been undertaken in accordance with the quality management system of NLG Ecology Ltd. No part of this report may be copied or duplicated without the express permission of NLG Ecology Ltd and the party for whom it was prepared. SUMMARY

NLG Ecology Ltd (NLG) was commissioned by Dominic Farley in September 2017 to undertake a building inspection/assessment for bat roosting potential of the barns at Topclose Farm, off Clarke Road, Macclesfield, SK11 0ND. The site is shown as Figure 1 (Appendix 1) and is centred on National Grid Reference SJ954719.

Mr Farley is seeking planning permission to convert the existing building (Barn 1 as shown in Figure 1) into a dwelling.

The survey aimed to determine the potential presence of bats roosting within the building subject to the proposals (Barn 1). Following the detailed inspection, Barn 1 has been confirmed as a roost for brown long-eared bats (*Plecotus auritus*). The species was confirmed by bat dropping DNA analysis. A large quantity of droppings (approximately 150) and feeding evidence (approximately 80 prey remains) were scattered throughout the top floor/hayloft of the barn, with the main roosting area (indicated by the volume of droppings and feeding remains) located within the gap above the south-western wall plate. The point(s) of access used by the bats is currently unknown - due to the height of the building, not all gaps could be thoroughly inspected, however a number of gaps were identified as potential access points. The building’s exterior also offers a number of high potential roosting opportunities to crevice dwelling bats, such as gaps beneath the lifted roof and ridge tiles.

In light of the barn’s confirmed use by bats in addition to further high roosting potential for both free hanging and crevice-dwelling bat species throughout the year, and in accordance with best practice guidelines (Collins 2016), three emergence/re-entry surveys are recommended to be undertaken between May and August inclusive. Although considered low risk, a hibernation inspection will be carried out with the aid of an endoscope and high powered torch to inspect all of the internal crevices. This was carried out at during the hibernation period on the 14th December 2017. Upon inspection, no bats were seen to be roosting within the building at this time, therefore confirming that the building is not being used for hibernation.

The barn should ideally remain unswept so as to allow for any accumulation of evidence that may contribute towards, and enhance, the other methods of data collection (e.g. species identification and any regular roosting spots). Further information is provided in the Conclusions and Recommendations section.

The data within this report are valid for 18 months from the date of the inspection i.e. until March 20th 2019.

# CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2\
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 2\
1.2 Bat Biology .................................................................................................................. 2\
2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 3\
2.1 Desk Study .................................................................................................................. 3\
2.2 Building Assessments ................................................................................................. 4\
3 SURVEY FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 5\
3.1 Desk Study .................................................................................................................. 5\
3.2 Building Assessments ................................................................................................. 6\
4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 10\
5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 11\
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 12\
Appendix 1 - Figures and Photographic Plates .................................................................. 12\
Appendix 2 - Legislation .................................................................................................... 22\
Appendix 3 - Bat Dropping DNA Analysis ........................................................................ 23 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 NLG Ecology Ltd (NLG) was commissioned by Dominic Farley in September 2017 to undertake a bat inspection/assessment of the barns at Topclose Farm, off Clarke Road, Macclesfield, SK11 0ND. The site is shown as Figure 1 (Appendix 1) and is centred on National Grid Reference SJ954719.

1.1.2 Mr. Farley is seeking planning permission to convert the existing barn (Barn 1, as indicated in Figure 1) into a habitable dwelling.

1.1.3 The inspection was undertaken by Sophie Warnock, Natural England Class Level 1 bat licensed surveyor (2016-24354-CLS-CLS) on the 20th September 2017.

1.1.4 Relevant legislations that have informed survey effort are detailed in Appendix 2. Note that the text provides a brief summary of the legislation in relation to bats in England and Wales and the original Acts, Regulations and any amendments should be referred to for the precise wording.

1.2 Bat Biology

1.2.1 Within the British Isles there are 17 resident (i.e. breed) species of bat. Bats are nocturnal and feed entirely on insects. They use echolocation, a complex sonar system, to navigate around their surroundings and to forage.

1.2.2 Depending on the species of bat, habitat requirements vary widely although features such as traditional pasture, woodland edges, parkland, and wetland are particularly good for bats as insects are abundant within these areas (Mitchell-Jones 2004). Linear features such as hedgerows, tree lines and watercourses are important for commuting as they assist navigation.

1.2.3 Bats utilise different roosts at different times of the year, and roost requirements vary between species. Typical roost sites include caves, mines, trees, and buildings. Bats hibernate between October and March and usually within a damp, unexposed roost which can maintain a relatively stable temperature such as caves, cellars, mines. Around March bats emerge from hibernation and gradually move to their summer roosts and during spring females gather together to form maternity colonies to give birth and rear their young. Summer and maternity roosts are typically found within man-made structures or suitable crevices in trees.

1.2.4 Birthing usually occurs late June – mid July, with the young able to fly within three to five weeks (Altringham 2003). By the end of August, most of the young bats are independent and the colony begins to break up. Mating takes place between August and December either at autumn swarming sites or winter hibernation sites. Bat roost sizes can vary from individual bats found within summer roosts, to hundreds of bats found within maternity colonies or hibernation sites. 2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Desk Study

2.1.1 A desk study provides background information on the ecological interest of a site and complements data collected in the field by providing ecological context for the site and its wider landscape. The search area extended up to 1km and incorporated the following resources:

- Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) [www.magic.gov.uk](http://www.magic.gov.uk) was searched for European and National Statutory designated sites, to identify designations with criteria for bats;

- The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas ([https://nbnatlas.org/](https://nbnatlas.org/)) was consulted for bat records, both field and roost; and

- Google Maps ([www.google.co.uk/maps](http://www.google.co.uk/maps)) were reviewed to help provide wider site context in respect of bat commuting. i.e. the presence of a continuous network of surrounding hedgerows may support findings drawn from field surveys.

2.2 Building Assessment

2.2.1 The building assessment adhered to guidance within the Bat Mitigation Guidelines (Mitchell-Jones 2004) and the Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines (Collins 2016) and involved a detailed external and internal inspection of the building. Equipment used to support the assessment included close-focusing binoculars, high powered torches and ladders to aid access.

2.2.2 Externally, the roof, walls, and any fascia boards and associated voids and gaps were inspected for evidence of use by bats. This evidence includes staining and scratch marks around potential roost entrance points, bat droppings, and feeding remains. The buildings were also assessed for their potential to provide suitable roosting conditions for bats.

2.2.3 Internally, where safe and accessible to do so, the internal building spaces were inspected for evidence of bats in the form of bat droppings and feeding remains (e.g. moth and butterfly wings), staining on crevices by fur oils or urine, as well as the bats themselves. Potential bat access points can include gaps within brick-work, tiles or mortar and voids under felt.

2.2.4 Each building was assigned a value for its bat roost potential, as described in Table 2.1 and adapted from Collins (2016).

Table 2.1: Visual Assessment Criteria for Buildings

| Suitability | Description of Roosting Habitats | Commuting and Foraging Habitats | |-------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------------| | Negligible | Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by roosting bats. | Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by commuting or foraging bats. | | Low | A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be | Habitats that could be used by small numbers of commuting bats, such as gappy hedgerow or unvegetated stream, but isolated (i.e. not very well connected to the surrounding landscape by other habitat). Suitable, but isolated, habitat that could be used by small numbers of foraging bats such as a lone tree | | Level | Description | Example | |-------|-------------|---------| | Low | Used on a regular basis or by larger numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation). A tree of sufficient size and age to contain PRFs but none seen from the ground, or, features seen with only very limited roosting potential. | (not in a parkland situation) or a patch of scrub. | | Moderate | A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, condition and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost type of high conservation status. | Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape, such as lines of trees and scrub or linked gardens that could be used by bats for commuting. Habitat that is connected to the wider landscape, e.g. trees, scrub, grassland and water, and could be used by bats for foraging. | | High | A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat. | Continuous high quality habitat such as river valleys, streams, hedgerows, lines of trees and woodland edges, that is well connected to the wider landscape and likely to be used regularly by commuting bats. High quality habitat that is well-connected to the wider landscape such as broadleaved woodland, tree-lined watercourses and grazed parkland, that is likely to be used regularly by foraging bats. Site is close to, and connected to, known roosts. | 3 SURVEY FINDINGS

3.1 Desk Study

3.1.1 Topclose farm is situated at the edge of Macclesfield forest which is to the east and south and agricultural land is present to the north and west. The closest watercourse to the farm is the Bollin Brook situated approximately 50m to the south and two issues are present approximately 895m south and 500m west. Several reservoirs are present within 1km of the farm; Rigegate Reservoir approximately 560m south, Teggsnose Reservoir approximately 680m west, Bottoms Reservoir approximately 800m west and Trentabank Reservoir approximately 840m south-east. Approximately 205m from the site a well is present.

3.1.2 The MAGIC website (http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx) was reviewed to establish the locations of any near-by designated sites and/or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats. The site is located within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Impact Risk Zones, is part of a less favoured area of England and is within the Peak District National Park. The site is also approximately 125m west from a Green Belt area under the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan. It is not envisaged that the works will impact upon this designation.

3.1.3 Several BAP priority habitats are located within 1km of the farm including deciduous woodland approximately 385m south, 455m west and 760m south, area of no main habitat but additional habitat exists approximately 400m west, lowland heathland approximately 490m west and 900m west, lowland dry acid grassland approximately 775m north-west and 940m north-west, upland heathland approximately 645m north-west and 655m north-west and an area of good quality semi-improved grassland (Non Priority) approximately 720m north. An area of ancient woodland is also situated approximately 570m west. Many habitats in the surrounding area are classified as different types of woodland on the National Forest Inventory including conifer habitat approximately 185m east, young trees approximately 183m east and 365m south-west, mixed mainly broad leaves approximately 700m south-east, assumed woodland approximately 305m north-east and broadleaved approximately 385m south, 455m west, 760m south, 530m east and 815m east. It is not envisaged that the works will impact upon these habitats.

3.1.4 No European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licences have been issued within 1km of the site. Brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus) have previously been recorded within 1km of the site using NBN Atlas. 3.4 Building Assessments

Barn 1 – Confirmed Roost

External

3.4.1 The predominant focus of the inspection was on Barn 1, which is currently the only building on site to be converted into a habitable dwelling. At present the building is empty however previously used as stables for horses (an overview of the barn can be seen in photographs 3 and 5). The building is a traditional agricultural barn, comprising of stone and mortar external walls, gable ends to the northeast and southwest, and pitched tiled roof. The walls are in good condition with no areas of cracked mortar or stonework. Purpose built gaps in the stone walls exist (likely from when the barn was used for livestock/agricultural storage) on the southeast and northwest walls that have now been blocked with various materials including glass windows, wire mesh, brick and pieces of wood.

3.4.2 The gable ends have wooden barge boards, which are approximately gapped by 100mm from the supporting wall - this is considered to be too wide and exposed a feature for bat roosting. Below the rakes and just above the barge boards on both of the building’s gables, slightly gapped areas have been identified where mortar has broken away, measuring at approximately 10-15mm wide and therefore considered to be suitably sized for bat access. It is unclear whether the gaps allow access to the interior - due to the high elevation, a thorough inspection of the feature could not be carried out; however, as no daylight could be seen when looking internally it is assumed that this area is possibly sealed.

3.4.3 Two small gaps were identified within the brickwork beneath the apexes on the north-east and south-west gables. The gaps are directly above the ridge board, which could potentially provide points of access to the barn’s interior and what is considered to be a favoured roosting area for some bat species. Again, a thorough inspection of these features could not be carried out due to height restrictions.

3.4.4 The roof is constructed of large, heavy stone tiles and stone ridge tiles. A number of lifted and gapped tiles are present on both roof slopes, and with the tiles being large, a generous overlap is created between them, which could offer ample roosting opportunities to bats. Similarly, a number of the ridge tiles are lifted and gapped, offering roosting opportunities beneath the tiles with potentially further access into the interior of the building. No soffit boxes or fascia boards are present on the north and south elevations; however the joists are exposed at the eaves. Each joist is well mortared and does not offer any points of access or roosting opportunities.

3.4.5 The building has been categorised as a confirmed brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus) bat roost, and also has high potential features to accommodate crevice dwelling bat species.

Internal

3.4.6 The building’s ground floor interior is separated into three rooms, one of which is divided from the main building and is accessible by an external door. This room does not offer any roosting opportunities due to its lack of internal features and lack of potential bat access points from the exterior (Photograph 6). The other two rooms are connected to the rest of the building via an open stairway. Wooden joists support the wooden slatted ceilings within both of the ground floor rooms. The small alcoves that have been created by this ceiling design offer a number of potential tucked away roosting locations, and the two ground floor rooms during the daytime are relatively dark and secluded, therefore considered to provide optimal conditions for roosting bats. One bat dropping and one tortoiseshell butterfly wing was found within the ground floor room closest to the stairs. One hirundine nest (suspected to be that of swallow Hirundo rustica) was also identified within the room closest to the stairs (Photograph 19). 3.4.7 The first floor of Barn 1 is a large hayloft (Photograph 7). The interior of the roof is lined with wooden cladding, with associated supporting wooden ridge board, purlins and king post truss. Along the ridge are a number of areas where the wooden cladding is not present, therefore exposing the exterior ridge tiles. As previously mentioned, some of the ridge tiles are lifted and gapped, therefore creating direct points of potential access below. Daylight ingress can be seen through these areas therefore highlighting access potential to bats (Photograph 11 and 12).

3.4.8 The walls of the northwest and southeast elevations are single skin. The walls and mortar are in good condition with minimal cracked areas present - any small mortar cracks that were identified are considered to be superficial. Purpose-built gaps in the stone walls exist, likely from when the agricultural barn was in active use. The gaps have been partially blocked with different materials including glass windows, wire mesh, bricks and bits of wood. Most of the gaps have been well-sealed with this method, however two gaps in particular present potentially accessible areas where the mesh has slightly broken away (Photograph 14), and where the bits of wood and brick have been placed in a way that does not entirely block the gap; therefore, smaller gaps have been created and are considered to be suitable points of access for bats (Photograph 13).

3.4.9 Windows are present on the southwest, northwest and northeast elevations and small cavities have been identified behind the wooden lintels (Photograph 15). No signs of bat use were observed beneath these window features during the first inspection, therefore it is considered unlikely that bats are using the cavities for roosting at present however future or occasional use is possible.

3.4.10 The gable walls are double skin with the interior wall being of breeze block construction. The top of breeze block wall plate on both of the gable walls does not meet the roof, which has created crevices at the top of, and between, the wall plates (Photographs 9 and 10). The crevices could not be inspected due to the excessive height, however a collection of droppings (approximately 20) have accumulated below and around the ridge board on the southwest gable wall (Photograph 8) indicating bat roosting within and around this area. With regards to other internal roosting locations, the hayloft is relatively sunlit during the day (apparent during the day time internal inspection) from the windows present to the southwest, northwest and northeast (this can be seen in photograph 7), however signs of bat roosting are prevalent throughout the hayloft (approximately 80 butterfly wings and approximately 150 droppings). Favoured areas for roosting have been identified along the eaves to the northwest and some sections to the south-west along the ridge board, predominantly centrally (Photographs 16 and 17).

3.4.11 From the evidence collected, it appears that the core roosting location is behind the wall plate on the southwest gable wall. It is apparent that the bats utilise the rest of the hayloft based on the droppings and feeding remains found, likely for night roosting/feeding and possibly occasional day roosting in the darker corners. 4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Barn 1 at Topclose Farm, at present, is the only building subject to renovation proposals. Following the detailed internal and external inspection carried out, and based on the evidence of bat use observed and/or collected (DNA analysis, droppings and feeding evidence), Barn 1 has been categorised as a ‘confirmed roost’ to brown long-eared bats. No bats were observed within the barn during the inspection and feeding/night roosting use is suspected, however a number of crevices exist internally as previously mentioned, offering suitable day roosting locations during the summer and potentially for hibernation.

4.2 As the conversion works will impact roosting bats, in line with both good practice guidance and the law, further surveys for bats are recommended. These are summarised as follows:

- Three dusk emergence/dawn re-entry surveys to be undertaken between May and August inclusive; and
- A hibernation inspection to be carried out during the winter months to inspect all of the internal crevices with the aid of an endoscope and high powered torch to identify presence/absence of hibernating bats.

4.3 The barn should remain unswept so as to allow for any accumulation of evidence that may contribute towards, and enhance, the other methods of data collection (e.g. species identification and any regular roosting spots). Any existing access points (for example, any windows that are permanently left open) should also be left as they normally are and remain unobstructed. The data collected would contribute towards the application for a mitigation licence from Natural England.

4.4 As roosting bat use of the barn subject to renovation proposals (Barn 1) has been confirmed, a European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence application to Natural England will be required to allow the lawful destruction of any roosts. The data collected during the recommended surveys are a vital part of this application and allow species, numbers and roost types to be confirmed, which will in turn inform an appropriate level and style of mitigation to ensure that the species’ favourable conservation status is maintained at the site. The licence application would need to include a detailed mitigation plan based on the survey findings (e.g. tailored to species, roost type etc. and including timing constraints and any works requiring ecological supervision). Details of post-development monitoring may also need to be included (dependent on the data collected) to assess the success of the replacement features for roosting bats and to satisfy Natural England that appropriate commitment to the conservation of EPS (bats) has been adopted for the site. Once submitted, an application takes at least 30 working days to process, depending on Natural England’s workload.

4.5 The hibernation check was carried out on the 14th December 2017, by Sophie Warnock and Megan Williams. No bats were identified within the known roosting locations, where extensive droppings have accumulated over time and as indicated in the photographs below. This therefore confirms that the building is not being used for hibernation.

Nesting birds

4.6 Opportunities for nesting birds are available (and evident) within Barn 1. Any works required should be undertaken outside the main bird nesting season, which runs from March to August inclusive. Should works to the barn interiors be required during the nesting season then an ecologist should carry out a check for active nests no more than 48 hours in advance of the commencement of works. If active nests, nests under construction or young birds that have not fledged the nest are present, then a species-specific exclusion zone will be required around the nest. Works can then only proceed once the ecologist has confirmed that the young have fledged. 5 REFERENCES

Altrincham, J. D. 2003. British Bats. London, Harper Collins Publishers

Collins, J, (ed.) (2016). Bat Survey for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition), Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Mitchell-Jones, A.J, (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. APPENDICES

3.5 Appendix 1 - Figures and Photographic Plates

Figure 1 – Site Location

Figure 2 Photographic Plates (Barn 1)

Photograph 1 - The northeast gable end

Photograph 2 - Small gap in stone work just above the wooden ridge board

Photograph 3 – An overview of the barn, the northwest elevation

Photograph 4 – Roosting opportunities beneath lifted tiles Photograph 5 – An overview of the barn, the south-east elevation

Photograph 6 – The segregated room on the ground floor

Photograph 7 – The first floor hayloft

Photograph 8 – A collection of droppings below the internal apex of the southwest wall Photograph 9 – Gap above the gable wall plate

Photograph 10 – Gap above the gable wall plate on the northeast elevation

Photograph 11 – Gaps beneath outer ridge tiles, which are exposed internally

Photograph 12 – One of the identified gaps associated with this feature Photograph 13 – A purpose built hole in the stone work which has been partially blocked using pieces of book and brick, a few of the identified gapped areas have been highlighted

Photograph 14 – Another purpose built hole in the stone work which has been partially blocked with wire mesh, an identified gap has been highlighted

Photograph 15 – Crevice behind the window lintels

Photograph 16 – Feeding evidence (butterfly wings) Photograph 17 – Feeding evidence (butterfly wings)

Photograph 18 – The ground floor room closest to the stairs

Photograph 19 – Hirundine nest located in the ground floor room closest to the stairs 3.6 Appendix 2 – Legislation

Bats

All UK bat species receive full protection (Schedule 5 species) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is further amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Taking these Acts together, it is an offence to:

- Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection (S9:4b).
- Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection by a bat (S9:4c).
- The term ‘reckless’ is defined by the case of Regina v Caldwell 1982. The prosecution has to show that a person either deliberately took an unacceptable risk, or failed to notice or consider an obvious risk.

A bat roost has been interpreted to mean any structure or place which is used for shelter or protection whether or not bats are present at the time. Bat roosts may be defined (Hunt, L, 2012) as either (i) Transition Roosts, (ii) Maternity roosts, (iii) Satellite Roosts, (iv) Mating Roost, (v) Hibernation roosts, (vi) Night Roost, (vii) Day Roost, (viii) Feeding Roost or (ix) Swarming Sites.

Bats are listed under Annexes IIa and IVa of the EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, or the ‘Habitats Directive’. Inclusion on Annex IVa means bats are a European Protected Species (EPS) and protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, thus it is an offence to:

(a) Deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal of an EPS,

(b) Deliberately disturb wild animals of any such species, in such a way as –

- (i) to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear their young, or
- (ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate, or
- (iii) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong;

A licence to disturb or take bats can be issued for certain purposes under Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and under Regulation 44 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 permitting activities that would otherwise be illegal under the legislation. Licences can take up to thirty working days to be issued by Natural England. Where impacts on bats are unavoidable, mitigation will be required to maintain and enhance the favourable conservation status of bats. Losses of bat roosts must be compensated for by the provision of new roosting sites and planting of new foraging habitat. Mitigation measures will need to be designed on a site specific basis and only in consultation with an expert. All mitigation proposals must be agreed with Natural England and put in place prior to the commencement of works. Breeding Birds

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) all wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is an offence to;

- Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird
- Intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built
- Intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird. Appendix 3 – Bat Dropping DNA Analysis

9 October 17

Re: Identification Results for Sophie Warnock, NLG Ecology Ltd

Job number 10800, received 26 September 2017 Sample labelled: Top Close Farm Barn 1 PCR amplification successful, DNA sequence: ATGACCAACATTGAAAGTCCACCCCTCTCATATAAAATATCAATGATTCTATTGATT CTTACCTGCTCCCTCAATATTTCTCATGTTGAAACTTTGGGTCTTCTAGGTATT GCC

Phylogenetic analysis identification: Plecotus auritus

Confirmed by maximum likelihood, maximum parsimony, bootstrap 100%.

Best regards,

Professor Robin Allaby

The results and conclusions in this report are based on an investigation of mtDNA sequence analysis. The results obtained have been reported with accuracy. The interpretation represents the most probable conclusion for the DNA sequence obtained rather than the sample provided given current levels of species data. It should be borne in mind that different circumstances might produce different results. Therefore, care must be taken with interpretation of the results especially if they are used as the basis for commercial recommendations.

Professor Robin Allaby School of Life Sciences, Gilbert Hill Campus, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, Tel: 02476575059 Fax: 02476574002 Email: r.g.allaby@warwick.ac.uk